HRI Columnists

HRI Selections

HRI Featured Bloggers

Tom Jicha

Tom Jicha grew up in New York City and worked with John Pricci at the short-lived revival of the New York Daily Mirror. Tom moved to Miami in 1972 for a position in the sports department at the now defunct Miami News.

Tom became the TV critic in 1980 and moved to the South Florida Sun Sentinel in 1988. All the while he has kept his hand in sports, including horse racing. He has covered two Super Bowls, a World Series and the Breeders’ Cup at Gulfstream Park.

He's been the Sun Sentinel’s horse racing writer since 2007 as a staff member, and continues to this day as a free-lancer.

Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Friday, November 15, 2013

Stewards often take much too long to render a call on inquiries, even when the outcome is inevitable. It happened in back-to-back races during Gulfstream's Sunshine Millions Preview. There was no excuse for either.

MIAMI, Nov. 15, 2013--The most agonizing moments for a horseplayer are waiting out a tight photo and sweating out an interminable inquiry. The former is a necessary evil. The latter, in many cases, is not.

Back-to-back races during Gulfstreamâ€™s Sunshine Millions Preview program provided examples of how stewards are regularly responsible for unnecessary delays in announcing a decision, which stretch out the card and cause heartburn for players.

My Pal Chrisy, the odds-on favorite in the Distaff Preview, powered past second choice Awesome Belle as the field straightened for home. For some mystifying reason, Jeffrey Sanchez aboard Awesome Belle claimed foul.

All it took was one look at the TV monitors to confirm what was seen during the actual running. My Pal Chrisy never came near Awesome Belle on the turn and was well clear when she moved over in front of her in the lane.

Fans all over the track were mocking Sanchezâ€™s claim, crying out, â€śWhereâ€™s the foul?â€ť As one wise guy put it, â€śWhatâ€™s he claiming, that the other horse ran too fast?â€ť

The stewards should have taken one courtesy look to make certain they didnâ€™t miss something. Instead, they took six or seven minutes to look, relook, then look again at every conceivable angle before doing what they should have done in 30 seconds, let the result stand.

The very next race, the Juvenile Sprint, produced the opposite situation. Wildcat Red led into deep stretch, then began to drift out, two, three, four paths. Meanwhile, Bolita Boyz was rallying furiously down the middle of the track. Wildcat Redâ€™s drift forced Paco Lopez aboard Bolita Boyz to hesitate, then, not knowing how much further Wildcat Red was going to come out, duck to the inside where his charge fell short.

The stewards were right on it, putting up the inquiry sign within seconds of the horses going under the wire. Once again, everyone at the track knew what the outcome was going to be. Wildcat Red had to come down. If there was any doubt, it was dispelled by a single look at the head-on.

Indeed, Wildcat Red was disqualified but not until the stewards took another five or six minutes to look repeatedly at the same incriminating footage. Remember, they saw enough live to put up the inquiry. This doesnâ€™t always result in a DQ but when the video reinforces what the stewards had seen live, it should be an easy and quick call. Their lengthy delay was inexcusable.

These two calls were so clear cut--there are similar ones all the time at tracks everywhere--you have to wonder if the stewards come to a decision, then sit on it for a few minutes so that they appear to have been in deep deliberations.

There are, of course, situations when an inquiry is so borderline it is commendable that the stewards consider every possible angle and take as much time as necessary before coming to a decision. More often, this is not the case. On these occasions, the stewards should take one look at the pan, one at the head-on, do whatever is called for and make the result official as quickly as possible.

Mutual poll manipulation?

Later the same afternoon, there was a suspicious turn of events at Hollywood Park, which suggested the possibility of mutual pool manipulation.

A horse named Ekahi opened at 3-5 in the seventh race, an open $16,000-$14,000 claimer. Problem was Ekahi was 30-1 on the morning line in a race in which there were no 20-1 shots. The next highest was 12-1.

The morning line was supported by the past performances. Ekahi was one-for-nine lifetime, zero-for-four in 2013. He was coming out of a $20K starter race in which he finished last of seven, beaten 28 lengths. His previous start, for the same tag as last Saturday but for limited winners, he finished 10th of 12. He had finished in front of only four of 31 opponents this year.

Unlikely winners often open short, especially at tracks with relatively small pools. Less than $100 can do it. But this was Hollywood Park on a Saturday, where it takes a sizable punch to make the toteboard rock. But there was no obvious contender worthy of this kind of support. The morning line choice was 3-1 and he didnâ€™t even wind up going off the favorite.

Another possible explanation was someone had made a mistake and hit the wrong number. Ekahi was No. 6. One of the well regarded horses was Cast a Doubt in No. 5, who did eventually become the betting choice at 5-2. This also is a fairly frequent occurrence and the board adjusts when the ticket is canceled and the money placed where it was meant to be.

But Ekahi lingered for most of the betting as the heavy favorite, drifting only slightly to even-money, then 6-5. It wasnâ€™t until about three minutes to post that the odds on Ekahi began their retreat to where they should have been. In one click, he zoomed to 14-1. By post time, he was 27-1. He ran like a 27-1 shot, trailing the field from start to finish.

For many years, a bettor couldnâ€™t change a wager once he stepped away from the window. It was a positive development when changes became permissable, theoretically because a wrong number had been purchased.

Computerized betting has changed the game. Now cancellations can be made with a simple click up to seconds before the field breaks.

I donâ€™t know where the Ekahi shenanigans originated but Hollywood Park and the California Racing Board can find out. They owe it to fans to investigate the circumstances and take steps to make sure it doesnâ€™t happen again.

Mr. Jicha, in the Awesome Belle claim, I agree that there should be no disqualification. However, feel strongly that there must be absolutely no doubt that a horse was not hindered in any way whatsoever when another horse changes lanes. Too many Racetrack Rats and OTB Oafs believe that a foul must include contact, which is ridiculous.

Long ago, when the world was a slightly better place, I can recall horses that changed lanes in front of another animal, irrespective of being “well clear” being taken down with impunity. This type of enforcement ensured that jockeys didn’t play the games they are allowed to get away with today. It was safer for the animals, the jockeys and the fans.

My Pal Chrissy had absolutely no reason to cut in front of Awesome Belle on the turn, there were no horses blocking her, and had (I realize this was not the case) Sanchez, at that precise point in time, given Awesome Belle her cue to go, she would have been forced to change lanes to do so, losing ground.

I also prefer the strict enforcement because it takes away the opportunity for stewards to become social workers, or play favorites. If there is any doubt, throw them out.

Turning for home, you better stay in the lane you have chosen, or been relegated to, or your coming down. This is not Nascar.

True enough about NASCAR T, but horses who tire will change paths on the own; racetrackers call it “the blind staggers.” And, on a related topic, this is the reason why whips should not be banned: It’s a safety precaution.

JP, I understand your points, however, I’m sure you’ve heard it all over the racetrack, “he didn’t mean it, the horse was tiring,” or “it wasn’t his (the jockey’s) fault,” or “it wasn’t that bad” (she’s only a little bit pregnant). Although we must care what a jockey’s intention was, for the purposes of disqualification, WHO CARES! Moreover, a jockey’s secondary duty must be not to interfere with another horse, and there is a direct conflict of interest with the primary duty of the jockey to win the race. Again, WHO CARES, if the lane change was due to a “blind stagger” (the way I usually leave the track), if another horse was interfered with, he should be coming down.

Even if you forget the part about the wager being fraudulent in my opinion, why on earth would XpressBet choose to stay silent on this issue? Just from a public relations standpoint donâ€™t you come out with a statement saying that youâ€™re taking measures to insure the integrity of the pari-mutuel pools?

Or, I guess you could say that this guy bets as much as 1,000 of your normal Customers so his business is more important than the rest of your Customers. Thatâ€™s whatâ€™s really going on in my opinion.

TTT et all. Fact: Horses get tired, not always rider’s fault. In that context, as bad as some of these politically appointed stewards are, I’d still rather they make judgment calls rather than punish horses, owners, trainers, jockeys and bettors because there might have been some inadvertent lane change.

Nowadays, DQ’s result in the GAIN OR LOSS OF MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

It’s not just a win bet on one race that’s won or lost.
Taking down a single first place finisher effects a large number of wagers. It’s not even just one race that’s affected. It’s many wagers on many races.

Look at what happened in the Breeders’ Cup with the DQ in the Juvenile Fillies. Taking down one of the favorites and putting up one of the longest shots at 32-1.

Besides the single race wagers (win, ex, tri, supr); it changed the resulting payoffs on two doubles, three pick 3’s, a pick 4, and a pick 5!!!

How many thousands of bets and dollars riding on a stewards’ decision?

The decision was NOT unanimous either. One of the stewards thought the finish should be left unchanged!!!

It wasn’t a clear cut decision in my view either. I’ve seen many, many horses left up for doing much worse.

Even Andy Serling commented at the time on how ironic it was that Castellano could benefit from something he is often accused of doing in NY, without being DQ’d - herding.

If you read the result chart of the race, you will see it doesn’t say the horses bumped - it simply says BRUSHED.

Denny, indeed, most of the good riders are guilty of herding. Cordero was the best because he could ride TWO other horses in the same race.

On a serious note, I keyed the first race “winner” but felt the DQ was justified. Yes, the contact by definition looked inconsequential. But it happened at the wire to the filly with momentum. IMO, and apparently in the opinion of 2 of the 3 judges, it was enough to award the win to the runner-up.

It is my understanding that the person who bet the 30K last week and then took it off was kicked out of the Hollywood Park pools by Hollywood Park. Good for them.

It is also my understanding that XpressBet lowered the cancel limit to 10K after the debacle last week. So today we have 9K bet and taken off. Just under the new limit. Was it some sort of payback for kicking the Whale out of their pools?

JP,
Still a tough DQ. Jeff Bonde said afterwards it felt like a kick to the stomach. An awful lot of money to the connections too. The decision easily could have been 2 -1 the other way.

The thing was, the bothered filly (Ria Antonia) never altered her stride. It didn’t look to me like she lost ANY momentum. If anything, I thought She’s A Tiger was “re-energized” by the contact and surged away and deserved the win.
I actually benefitted from the DQ. Me and a couple of buddies had a “saver” pick 3 (to protect our Pick 5) - which paid just under $600 for 50-cents. Another OTB friend had $30 across on Ria. So we were mostly pretty happy, but, I was still surprised it happened.

Denny, agree with you completely. I was shocked by the dq. John puts his finger on it. It happened in deep stretch. Had it happened at the eighth pole the quarter pole it would have been ignored. Had it happened between horses battling for third and fourth, also probably would have been overlooked. Can you imagine if it had happened in the fifth race on Friday and involved one of the live horses in the pick five? Stewards are entrusted with a fiduciary power they have not earned. I for one, am against the whole idea of dqs for betting purposes. Let them discipline jockeys and decide what to do with purses, but let the results stand. Short of that, a more exotic, creative and hence, probably hopeless, alternative is to treat dqs like we do dead heats. To me, that’s a middle ground that protects horseplayers and takes some heat off stewards

Some interesting proposals Kyle. Actually, the idea of penalizing the jockey with also punishing the owner and trainer does have some merit. But, then, the punishment for the rider can’t be just a fine; it would have to entail “days.” Then we’re back in that “due process appeal” bugaboo.

Also, there’s the notion that if you leave the results to stand, why should be runner-up be punished when his horse met with interference that cost him his share of the purse?

There is a school for stewards. maybe someone like Chris McCarron could teach that class, explaining to the officials on the ground just what’s happening on horseback.

It’s an imperfect system but it’s the best we have I believe. Officials in all sports get the calls wrong every so often. Doesn’t make it right; just a sad fact of a sporting life.

Answer these four questions
1. Did she’s a tiger drift out. Yes
2. Was contact made. Yes
3. What wasthe margin between the two horses horses before contact. A long head
4. What was the margin after contact. In Good neck
Advantages gained by the contact even though it was ever so slight is nevertheless an infraction

How many times in th. bred racing has there been a DQ in A DH
for first place ?

* Prior commenting issues should now be resolved

Name:

Email:

Location:

Notify me of follow-up comments?

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using anotherâ€™s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.